Racism as a Provocation?

         Before you guys watch the following video id just like to explain that the video's vocabulary is very vulgar and can be considered offensive. However afterwards I would like to challenge this video and challenge your way of though by asking you when is it ok to come to a "racist" conclusion?

           This video illustrates a very important issue in society. As the narrator explains within the video, that certain stereotypes are initially given to certain people; and that the person deeming these stereotype have already predetermined the characteristics of the other person. These stereotypes(some that we are familiar with and some we are not) span all over the globe in many different types of countries and "races". However, despite the specific type of "racism" that is happening here i would like to focus on the narrators reaction and mental process because he recognizes the women's actions as "racism".
           In the video the narrator comes to a "racist" conclusion and explains that the fact that he thinks your stereotyping him is in fact a type of provocation. The Narrator says "in actuality your provoking a savage attack". Im sure that this feeling doesn't only belong to this type of stereotyping. It also happens into almost every other type there is. Some both "positive" or negative stereotyping.
           In a case like this, is it alright to jump to a "racist" conclusion? Who knows? Maybe the women in the video(or anyone who would have a reaction that could be considered racist) had an accident previously that caused her to act in such a way. For example: maybe before coming into the elevator the women almost got mugged? Maybe she has something in there she doesn't want anyone to see?

So reader, when exactly is it "ok" to immediately jump to a "racist" conclusion.

"Scientific Racism" still exists?

                         The link above is the Comedian David Hofstetter, who talks about "racism" and the lessons on the topic he learned as a child. He touches on a large number of problems within "Racism". Hofstetter says "I tell people i'm Jewish, there like, no man you must be Irish, you've got red hair!". Within this day and time when we talk about "race" most people will immediately imagine someone of the "visible minority". However, in Hofstetter's initial quotation, he explains that his religion is Judaism. Quickly the person he is talking to, he explain, that in disbelief his convocational partner says he couldn't be Jewish he must be Irish because he has red hair.
              The quotation at hand is expressing both a stereotype and, well ignorance. Hofstetter explains that his conversational partner has mistaken his religion for a race and continues to stereotype people with red hair must be, and only are from Ireland. This is an example of "racism" going outside of what the social concept of "race" is.
              The quotation is a prime example of a person that is not a "visible minority" experiencing "racism". This relates back to the articles we discussed in class about what is "white". This specific example is quite interesting because this reflects back on our class workshop about Golberg's "Racial Knowledge "(page 154). Where Golberg shows us that "Race" and what is "White" has changed over the years. The fact his conversation partner insisted that he must be Irish because he has red hair shows that to that person, all red haired people must be Irish. This idea goes even further into the past. Where the Irish were not considered "white". So how do you figure out an Irishman from a British man? Well do not fear, our British friends from our past has given us an explanation through Scientific Racism!

         The Irishman is on the left, with the "Anglo-Tutonic" person in the middle and the "Negro" on the right. The left picture shows a drawing of one Irishman, however it was believed that all Irish people were to have very similar facial structures and lacked any facial structures of another "race".
         The following picture is a sign that would be put up when a person was hiring for work. While your looking at this next picture, would you consider this discrimination or "racism"? And if "racism" why?

       I believe a lot of people today would defiantly argue that this is both, because racism is a certain type of discrimination; however, in todays society Irish people are considered "white".

"Biological Euphemisms"

       Dear reader,
                    Lately, there has been a few things on my mind both scientific topics and sociological theories. One theory in particular is the theory of colour blindness. Before I go on i would honestly like to ask you these questions: Do you think canadian society is "Colour Blind"? Do you think Canadian university institutions are "Colour Blind"? I wont be answering these questions myself; however, i do want to explain something that really "Grinds my gears".
                   For those of you who are in the course "Race, Racism and Colonialism" I realized what i'm about to explain about half way through the first term. In today's Canadian society we have many different terms to profile different people. Terms that encompass or group together what is known in Canada as the "visible minority". This term tries to target a group or large array of people that person might call a "visible minority". This term as you may have guessed can refer to "race", or gender(mostly used for "race").
                   In academia we tend to try to steer away from this social construct of "race" by referring to more of what people might call a "biological origin" term. These are terms like "African-Canadian"or "Asian-Canadian". Some may deem these terms "politically correct"; however, these are terms i would like to get back to in a moment.
                   In Canada the way we deal with talking about a person who is of "North-European"(Canadian or not) decent  I have noticed we just deem this group of people as "white". Now, heres where something doesn't exactly match up. Why exactly are we still classifying a group of people as "white" when we have deemed euphemisms for other groups. Terms like "African-Canadian and Asian Canadian". Terms like these, from what I understand were invented to be used for "people of colour" in a political correct way. However, it is to my understanding that the colour(or shade) white is still on the Colour Spectrum(which is a combination of all visible colour/light). So why exactly are we not using a "biological euphemism" for the profiled group of "white". Why aren't we using "European-Canadian"?
                  To rant on further i'm going to contradict myself and explain that I don't even believe in these "biological euphemisms" that we deem "politically correct". To be honest these "biological euphemisms" are racist in itself because they group a large group of people on a continental level. When i'm sure we are all aware there are many different people, with many different cultures and beliefs within a modern day continent.
                  Before the Colonial conquest age there are writings that explain "Northern/Western European's" acknowledged the difference in nations in a continent. Writings explain different groups of people in Africa known for their certain expertise or way of life. People in Africa was not considered to be one “race”. To the "Northern Europeans"(at the time), all of Africa was divided into “nations” and “tribes” with different “Gens”(The closest word to "race" at the time, which more refers to a blood linage) this showing that the Europeans recognized the many difference types of African linage. African nations(from a European’s perspective) were divided up into “clans” and “nations”, some of which had a what some may associate with a stereotype(Not races). For example:  a “clan” called the “Illophagi” were known as the “fruit eaters”, the “Spermaphagi” were known as “seed eaters”. Hinting at the fact that this idea of "Race" only came into play or established as a concept during the colonial age.
                  There, my rant is over...
                                                       Lets not pretend anymore...


Heres a little bit of my research.

      Nicholas Hudson. (1996). From "nation" to "race" the origin of racial classification in eighteenth century thought. Retrieved from http://jft-newspaper.aub.edu.lb/reserve/data/s11147/s11147.pdf 

Ps. Do you guys disagree?

Defining today's "Racism" and the implications that come with it

The video below is from Steve Palikin's youtube channel and show. This video is interesting because they debate about the concept of "race" and "racism" and try to define it. A very interesting part of the video is when they start to talk about the word "racialize" and what it means.
     Dear readers,
                       I strongly encourage you to watch this video, especially from 24:30 to 26:27 and please pay attention to what Irshad Manji explains about a "pluralistic society"

.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zUNt3ECtow

"No Trespassing"

If people could please divert their attention over to the photo please and realize the tragic humor expressed in Banksy's(the graffiti artist) painting.

For those of you who do not understand or know the historical meaning behind this painting. Allow me to illustrate some of the history of what some American’s might call “The Great White North”, also known as Canada, as briefly as possible.

In 1610 British colonies landed and settled within Canada in modern day Newfound land(52.6244° N, 59.6850° W) which triggered a large number of events that would allow the suffering and exploitation of the first nations people. Before the British landed within present day Canada, the indigenous population were either nomadic, bands or chiefdoms. 

In 1670 the British King Charles the II gave a large portion of line in present day Canada to the Hudson Bay Company. This land of which was not owned nor occupied by British rule. A company that is now known as “The Bay”. This land was called “Rupert’s land” and spanned from around the Hudson Bay to modern day Saskatewan. The Hudson Bay Company then brought traders from Great Britain to trade certain goods. Goods like, traps, tools and guns. This was the first time the first nations people’s culture has ever held or seen a gun before. 

The gun, some times known as the “weapon of the proletariat”, created such a change in aboriginal culture. Instead of old hunting methods like bows and arrows the first nations people would now use guns to hunt and kill their food. With the squeeze of a trigger, the first nations people became dependent on the gun over generations. Which in turn are generations of culture and tradition lost because of the globalization of the gun and what cultures and practices came with it.

The first nations people were so dependent on the gun it led to almost a full dependance on the British culture. With each generation the British moved deeper and deeper into the chiefdom lands. This land in which the British did not own. The Hudson bay company decided to write up a contract in english which states that the chiefdoms will give up their lands. The chiefs of the chiefdoms, not knowing english signed the paper under the understanding that it was allowing the hudson bay company to visit there cheifdom. With the signed document that sold the land to the Hudson Bay company, they decided to then sell it to the provence which in turn sold it to the crown. Forcing the aboriginals who wanted to keep their culture out of the land that they once occupied. Those who stayed within the lands that were now owned by the crown like to day would have given up their own aboriginal nationality and would have been considered British(Canadian in the present day).

If you asked a British man back in the 1600 how they justified their colonial conquest. He would probably reply in a relatively social darwinistic way. Possible something along the lines of "We are helping them become more civilized, like us".

But now I shall ask you....

                                   Who’s Trespassing now?


Sometimes I feel society just wants to say: "Lets just pretend that didn't happen".
          But Banksy wont.

Test, Test, Test.